• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Core 9000 series

I know this is a 9900k thread but can someone please back up the (as far as I can see) unsubstantiated claims such as "AMD going to overtake Intel next year in speed, Mhz, IPC" "AMD going to crush Intel next year"... Etc.

I'm yet to see ANY evidence that says this is the case.

I don't doubt for a second that AMD will go mental next year and release a "16 core" consumer ryzen R7 or something mad along those lines. But I'm also willing to bet that Intel will STILL be king for gamers. What use is a 16core cpu to a gamer? AMD will keep slapping cores on and touting multithread render times in slides. But that's all they have at the moment. They can't beat Intel speed so it's... MOR CORES. I don't need em won't use em.
 
Last edited:
beany_bot said:
They can't beat Intel speed so it's... MOR CORES
Click to expand...

And what makes you so sure? Zen 2 could be monumental. Intel could hit thermal issues and downclock everything. Nvidia could significantly lower their prices inspiring game devs to actually do a proper job with multi-threaded engines, and thus it IS about MOR CORES, not clock speed and Intel get destroyed.

"They can't beat Intel speed" is just as unsubstantiated as "AMD going to overtake Intel"; you can't deride statements such as the latter whilst making statements such as the former.
 
All Intel have at the moment is a few hundred mhz, they will need to fix their 10nm issues and develop a new architecture asap, but that isn't happening anytime soon so here's Moar Cores.
 
beany_bot said:
I know this is a 9900k thread but can someone please back up the (as far as I can see) unsubstantiated claims such as "AMD going to overtake Intel next year in speed, Mhz, IPC" "AMD going to crush Intel next year"... Etc.

I'm yet to see ANY evidence that says this is the case.

I don't doubt for a second that AMD will go mental next year and release a "16 core" consumer ryzen R7 or something mad along those lines. But I'm also willing to bet that Intel will STILL be king for gamers. What use is a 16core cpu to a gamer? AMD will keep slapping cores on and touting multithread render times in slides. But that's all they have at the moment. They can't beat Intel speed so it's... MOR CORES. I don't need em won't use em.
Click to expand...

humbug said:
I didn't say match, they don't have to match, right now @5Ghz the 8700K is <15% better in games than the Ryzen 2700 at 4.2Ghz, Global Foundries are citing 40% higher performance 7nm vs 14nm, GloFo 14nm is rated for 3Ghz, add 40% to that and you get 4.2Ghz, of course that rating is the ideal clock speed, the best balance between clock speed and power, so i wouldn't count out 4.8Ghz overclock and what difference is that from Intel 5Ghz when the difference between Ryzen at 4.2 and 8700K at 5Ghz in games is 15%?
I'll tell you, its nothing, 0, add to that an IPC bump, rumoured to be 15% and 12 cores Mainstream the 9800K even the 9900K gets humiliated.
Click to expand...
 
beany_bot said:
I know this is a 9900k thread but can someone please back up the (as far as I can see) unsubstantiated claims such as "AMD going to overtake Intel next year in speed, Mhz, IPC" "AMD going to crush Intel next year"... Etc.

I'm yet to see ANY evidence that says this is the case.

I don't doubt for a second that AMD will go mental next year and release a "16 core" consumer ryzen R7 or something mad along those lines. But I'm also willing to bet that Intel will STILL be king for gamers. What use is a 16core cpu to a gamer? AMD will keep slapping cores on and touting multithread render times in slides. But that's all they have at the moment. They can't beat Intel speed so it's... MOR CORES. I don't need em won't use em.
Click to expand...
Most people on this forum have an interesting "I only care about gaming" perspective. You need to realise that that type of user isn't that common among the general desktop market.

Pretty much any benchmark will show their IPC as neck-and-neck currently, and Intel's IPC hasn't even moved since Skylake (which itself was only a 3% ish improvement on Broadwell). Obviously AMD has more cores at each price point, fewer security issues (that we know about), and the gaming picture looks a lot better now than it did 18 months ago when Ryzen was a brand new architecture. Even their energy efficiency is great, which is mainly because Intel are milking their main advantage: clock speeds.

Presentations slides from ages ago suggested that whilst Global Foundries' 14 nm process was designed for "low power" and optimised for 3 GHz speeds, the 7 nm process is designed for 5 GHz speeds. Whether that's possible whilst staying in a reasonable TDP envelope is yet to be seen but AMD seem confident. In terms of IPC, who knows. I've seen the 10-15% number floated around but no evidence for it.

Meanwhile Intel is stuck with tweaking their 14 nm process. Their maximum boost clocks have crept up over the last few Skylake refreshes whilst keeping the same TDP, and they seem to slightly bump their maximum overclocking potential with each generation too. AMD's core count has forced them to compete in that arena too, which is why the highest core count in their mainstream chips went from 4 to 6 last time around. It's now bumping again to 8, although they are also introducing a new tier which will have exclusivity of SMT, presumably to avoid cannibalising their HEDT line-up too much. So yeah, once again Intel will be introducing a new price bracket so they can charge more.

We know Intel won't have anything beyond "Coffee Lake 2" until 2H 2019 and let's be honest, that probably won't happen either (since 10 nm was originally due in 2016 and has been delayed half a dozen times already). I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Coffee Lake 3 next year, although what it'll look like is anyone's guess. They've been continuing with the ring bus design for their mainstream CPUs whilst they switched to mesh for their HEDT and Xeon line-up in 2015, but that was poorly received because overall performance was worse at the same clock speed. They're currently stretching the ring bus design to compete in the short-term but presumably they already know that isn't sustainable, otherwise they wouldn't have switched to using a mesh architecture for their higher core count chips. I believe the most cores ever seen in a single ring bus is 10, so something has to give. Surely eventually they'll need to embrace their mesh architecture and improve it enough that it at least matches AMD's infinity fabric design?

One thing is for sure: they cannot get away with their current strategy forever.
 
Yeah i just dont get this gaming focused stance on here, its a tiny part of the IT world.
Anyway yes intel has big issues, whoppers if they go into the second half of 2019 just starting to open out a working 10nm - at least they might have some of there security problems fixed by then.
 
sideways14a said:
Yeah i just dont get this gaming focused stance on here, its a tiny part of the IT world.
Anyway yes intel has big issues, whoppers if they go into the second half of 2019 just starting to open out a working 10nm - at least they might have some of there security problems fixed by then.
Click to expand...
Because non gamers are buying tablets, dell laptops, pentiums and or HEDT/server chips.

In terms of high end R7 and I7 chips I bet a LOT are sold to Gamers.
 
beany_bot said:
I know this is a 9900k thread but can someone please back up the (as far as I can see) unsubstantiated claims such as "AMD going to overtake Intel next year in speed, Mhz, IPC" "AMD going to crush Intel next year"... Etc.

I'm yet to see ANY evidence that says this is the case.

I don't doubt for a second that AMD will go mental next year and release a "16 core" consumer ryzen R7 or something mad along those lines. But I'm also willing to bet that Intel will STILL be king for gamers. What use is a 16core cpu to a gamer? AMD will keep slapping cores on and touting multithread render times in slides. But that's all they have at the moment. They can't beat Intel speed so it's... MOR CORES. I don't need em won't use em.
Click to expand...

beany_bot said:
Because non gamers are buying tablets, dell laptops, pentiums and or HEDT/server chips.

In terms of high end R7 and I7 chips I bet a LOT are sold to Gamers.
Click to expand...

There doesn't seem to be anything real beyond anecdotal evidence pushed by pro AMDer's about how the next chips might perform. I agree also that people buying 8600/8700 and Ryzen will be using them for games in some form and a lot probably heavily.

I don't see the supposed issues with Intel. They've been caught with their pants down but even with that they will be quicker until Ryzen 3XXX which is at the moment unknown. Intel not having anything new coming seems to be a buzz phrase but neither do AMD until what, April next year? Even the supposed terrible X299 platform performs better than the equivalent Threadripper. The 9700/9900k also looks interesting. It was only recently as well that people on here were proclaiming Z370 was a dead platform which now seems false and future Intel chips wouldn't be soldered. It's all just guess work/agenda pushing with no real knowledge.

In that sales chart in the other thread AMD did great with Ryzen release (as should be expected) but Intel have been beating AMD since December, some months hammering them, and the 2XXX series doesn't seem to have had the same impact although it has brought it closer again. The 9700/9900k will increase that lead again no doubt. I see a lot of enthusiasts like myself sitting on X79 and what not looking for an excuse to upgrade. We don't seem to have been motivated yet but it will be interesting to see where we go.

I think it's great both are doing well. AMD deserve it for the great Ryzen release but the demise of Intel is very premature and seems to be based on Intel just sitting around and doing nothing. I'm sure they are working very hard, like AMD, to be competitive. It might actually be a good idea if they did take some extra time to get things perfect. I'm sure they can afford it.
 
beany_bot said:
Because non gamers are buying tablets, dell laptops, pentiums and or HEDT/server chips.

In terms of high end R7 and I7 chips I bet a LOT are sold to Gamers.
Click to expand...

Simply not true.
I buy in a lot of the i5 class office workstations and laptops every year, its simply not true to say the desktop pc market is either cheep pentium rubbish or HEDT.

Now this market has been and will continue to shrink but even a modest % of that market for AMD will be a lot and intel will not want to loose much of it as its also a lot to them.

Yes of course a lot of the i7 / R7 type chips are bought by gamers, but then there is a lot wanting those chips for other needs.. Amd needs to get into that market as well, which it is doing slowly.
 
Everyone keep moaning saying "refresh refresh" .

I garuntee if this was a new node and new lake but offered the same 8c/16t @5ghz they would shouting horrah from the rooftops.

What the hell does it matter what lake or nm or socket it is. Surely the performance is all that matters. 8core at 5ghz I'll happily take. It can be sandybridge for all I care.
 
beany_bot said:
Everyone keep moaning saying "refresh refresh" .

I garuntee if this was a new node and new lake but offered the same 8c/16t @5ghz they would shouting horrah from the rooftops.

What the hell does it matter what lake or nm or socket it is. Surely the performance is all that matters. 8core at 5ghz I'll happily take. It can be sandybridge for all I care.
Click to expand...

The 9900K will be around £450 but besides that i think most people are just talking about all the other 9000 series just being rebranded 8000 series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom